Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

NTSB recommendations

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Edgunter(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:22 am Post subject: NTSB recommendations

In a message dated 7/9/2009 2:04:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Paul  writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Finally,    when I was about to get my plane inspected and start flight 

testing, the    NTSB came out with their (nearly?) unprecedented ruling 

- that all planes    in this family should be immediately grounded. 	
  

 Maybe the NTSB just doesn't get the big picture & should venture out of  their ivory tower now & then.

  

 <<NTSB: More than 1,000 recommendations are being  ignored>>

  

 http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479&copyid=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss

 Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com.

  [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:43 am Post subject: NTSB recommendations

A good point.



 Still, my understanding is that the notion of immediately grounding an entire fleet of planes is a very unusual recommendation from the NTSB.  Many of their recommendations are more like the ones I chose to ignore in the Zodiac XL letter including a small change in airspeed calibration.



 



 At 05:20 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:

 [quote]In a message dated 7/9/2009 2:04:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Paul writes:

   Finally, when I was about to get my plane inspected and start flight 

  testing, the NTSB came out with their (nearly?) unprecedented ruling 

  - that all planes in this family should be immediately grounded.



   

 Maybe the NTSB just doesn't get the big picture & should venture out of their ivory tower now & then.

  

 <<NTSB: More than 1,000 recommendations are being ignored>>

  

  http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=9CA199B1-0B54-4D47-8F1A-3B7150010479&copyid=C63BF415-D392-4E85-BC37-A93C7C6FF93A&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss 

 [b]

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: NTSB recommendations

y'all put an interesting point.  In my conversations with both entities on the National level,  they are Ying and Yang.  The Mission of NTSB is safety,  FAA's is admin and compliance.  NTSB historically Has looked at LSA with very skeptical glasses, and is puting any issue regarding the LSA segment with suspicion.  After all the over all concept of LSA according to the NTSB is to allow, folks that should not pilot,   pilot.  To them LSA goes against the rules of regular Pilotage criteria.   So the focus on LSA aircraft by NTSB is hence, prejudiced.  FAA is the regulator and equalizer.



Juan



--

paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:33 am Post subject: NTSB recommendations

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  You raise an interesting issue, Juan, that of the NTSB's viewpoint. There  was a time (don't ask me how I know) when a pilot's license was denied anyone  who needed glasses, or was missing too many teeth, or had had any one of several  childhood maladies. When I entered USAF pilot school, we were allowed no  corrective lenses, a max number of cavities, and had to be missing no more than  four teeth. (Bite the enemy to death?) We also had to fit between max and  minimum weights for our heights. Same thinking now holds with people who  (shouldn't?) fly. This from a senior TWA pilot, who had tons of hours: "I'd  rather fly with a guy whose heart has been repaired, than one who has never had  a problem. At least one of them has a recent overhaul."  NTSB is a bunch of  political appointees,  who want no risks at all, in anything.    Back when I was working on my Master's in safety, the first thing we learned was  the philosophy of safety.  It entailed the acceptance of reasonable  risks,  not the elimination of all risks.

  

 Paul R

 DO NOT ARCHIVE

 [quote]   ---

ihab.awad(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:47 am Post subject: NTSB recommendations

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM, <paulrod36(at)msn.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   You raise an interesting issue, Juan, that of the NTSB's viewpoint. There

 was a time (don't ask me how I know) when a pilot's license was denied

 anyone who needed glasses ... When I entered USAF pilot school, we were

 allowed no corrective lenses, a max number of cavities, ...


	


Interesting. I have always attributed these attitudes more to the

tradition of aviation as "risky"; the need for aviators to be

"special"; and the legacy of aviation in the military (where,

arguably, the demands do need to be stricter).



Similarly, I have attributed the loosening of these attitudes to a

general broadening of social thinking. For example, we now take the

trouble to build bathrooms big enough for wheelchairs because there is

no good reason to isolate wheelchair-bound people from society, and we

allow private pilots with corrective lenses because the risk (of, say,

losing one's glasses in flight and not having a backup pair) is low

enough that there's no good reason for the restriction.



According to Wikipedia, the NTSB was formed in 1967. As such, it seems

it's not old enough to have been responsible for the attitudes you

list; more likely, these attitudes were changing while the NTSB was in

its formative years.



Ihab



-- 

Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: NTSB recommendations

I think the whole subject of aviator medical qualification is 

undergoing a very needed review.

We have had 2(?) airline pilots drop dead while flying in the last 

year.  We know they had a first class medical exam within 6 months.

Chuck Yeager pointed out in his book that the pilot who saw the other 

guy first (the one with the best vision) was usually the winner in a 

dog fight.  That was appropriate to WW II military aviation 

technology.  Today, the highest paid and most depended upon pilots 

(scheduled airline) are mostly computer operators.  Indeed some of 

the recent (last decade or two) airline incidents pointed out that 

some left seaters can't even fly on instruments well enough to get 

the plane straight and level.

I thought the whole LSA movement was designed to A) copy the European 

Ultralight standards, and B) enable more new pilots and others to fly 

new airplanes without paying the bloated prices for part 23 

airplanes.  The whole light plane industry nearly died in the '80s 

due to product liability suits and awards, and the pricing of 

Cessna's, Piper's, etc. has never recovered.

If it is really true that the NTSB is biased against LSA, then they 

need to get their act together.  I firmly believe the LSA movement is 

the best thing to happen to GA in many years.  If indeed the NTSB's 

bias is responsible for their position on the Zodiac XL than perhaps 

someone can tell me why they have singled this plane out and left the 

hundred or so other LSA alone.

Paul

XL grounded

At 11:46 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM, <paulrod36(at)msn.com> wrote:

 > You raise an interesting issue, Juan, that of the NTSB's viewpoint. There

 > was a time (don't ask me how I know) when a pilot's license was denied

 > anyone who needed glasses ... When I entered USAF pilot school, we were

 > allowed no corrective lenses, a max number of cavities, ...

Rhino

Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Xenia, Ohio

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:45 am Post subject: Re: NTSB recommendations

 	  Juan Vega Jr wrote: 	
		  y'all put an interesting point.  In my conversations with both entities on the National level,  they are Ying and Yang.  The Mission of NTSB is safety,  FAA's is admin and compliance.  NTSB historically Has looked at LSA with very skeptical glasses, and is puting any issue regarding the LSA segment with suspicion.  After all the over all concept of LSA according to the NTSB is to allow, folks that should not pilot,   pilot.  To them LSA goes against the rules of regular Pilotage criteria.   So the focus on LSA aircraft by NTSB is hence, prejudiced.  FAA is the regulator and equalizer. 	
True, but the Zodiac was around long before LSA.

_________________
Bob Simmons
CH 750
N750TN (reserved)

d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:09 pm Post subject: NTSB recommendations

Hi Paul. Pretty sure the NTSB is actually only concerned with safety and has 

no axe to grind against any group or company. When a single design pops out 

of the mix as having an unsual set of statistics it calls attention to 

itself. Should a certain class of pilots show up in statistics as having an 

unusual trait of higher or lower safety standing than others it would either 

enhance or diminish the standing of the LSA community. It is worth 

everyone's while here to have safe designs, and operate them safely. Having 

a person advocate that the designer's new recommendations regarding the 

airframes operating parameters are simply PR and not required is hardly the 

kind of stuff that will enhance safety.



Despite the changing regulatory base and requirements for pilots to fly, one 

axiome remains-- Want to get yourself and all your buddies grounded? Have an 

incident that was clearly preventable.



---

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB recommendations

 	  d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote: 	
		  Hi Paul. Pretty sure the NTSB is actually only concerned with safety and has 

no axe to grind against any group or company. 



--- 	




The NTSB has been worried about LSAs for a while. The following are from various issues of last year's Daily AirVenture Newletter.



"Earl Lawrence, EAA vice president of industry and regulatory affairs, told the group that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has voiced some concerns about LSA, but that NTSB officials are pleased with the progress being made on ASTM standards and on an assessment of LSA production."



"EAA met with NTSB officials to answer NTSB concerns about LSA safety and standards. NTSB still has some concerns, but FAA leadership is behind light-sport aircraft."



The NTSB is like every other government agency they aren't endowed with any special love of humanity because they have "Safety" in their name. They have never been a fan of the LSA class and the accidents just gave them a target.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: NTSB recommendations

I had read that before and it didn't seem to me that it represented a 

particular greivance with LSA, it was "concern" about the broadening of 

standards altogether. I have heard from some members of the commercial 

aviation community (read carriers) that they were against it also. Fine with 

me if they have their concerns, somebody has to keep an eye on things or 

standards get lax.



---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum